D. Boon's blog

This week has seen a slaughter of the Palestinian people in Gaza that must have caused even the staunchest supporters of Israel to pause.  Israel has, thus far, committed the following atrocities, most of which are war crimes:

• Attack of relief vessel Dignity (carrying Cynthia McKinney among others) in international waters.
• Attack of Ibrahim al-Maqadna mosque during evening prayers, killing 13 people, including six children.
• Murder of 40+ civilians who were taking shelter in UN schools across Gaza.
• Forcing of Palestinians civilians into a home with no food or running water and then shelling that home killing over 30 people.

According to the UN, as of Friday (9 January) the Palestinians have suffered over 4100 casualties, with 800 dead and 3100 wounded.  Israel has suffered about 132 casualties, with 13 dead and 119 wounded.  Of the Israeli dead, three civilians and one soldier have been killed by rocket fire, five soldiers have perished in combat, and four have been killed by friendly fire.  Of the Palestinian dead, 257 have been children and 56 were women.  21 relief workers have also been killed.  Hamas claims that only 10 of its soldiers have been killed.  Assuming that this is an underestimate, and that 10x that number have been killed, that means about 200-300 male Palestinian civilians have also perished.

These numbers are shocking.  Israel has killed 600-700 innocent civilians in a couple of weaks, and injured thousands of others.  In return, Israel's civilian population has remained fairly immune from the fighting.

Yet, Israel's defenders continue to claim that they are morally justified in continuing the slaughter.  Even when they clearly break international law, and commit atrocities that can logically be called terrorism, Israel's supporters claim that they are only taking these measures because of the illegal actions of Hamas.  That, in short, if Hamas would "stop declaring that Israel must be wiped from the face of the earth" and "renounce terrorism against Israel", then their civilians would stop dying.

This argument disgusts me, as it should disgust any American.  It is almost a carbon-copy of the argument made by Ward Churchill in the days after September 11, 2001, in his essay, Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens.  Churchill started his essay by explaining the illegal activities of the U.S. Army during the first Gulf War, which resulted in the deaths of about 500,000 Iraqi children.

1991 US "surgical" bombing of [ Iraq's ] water purification and sewage facilities, as well as other "infrastructural" targets upon which Iraq's civilian population depends for its very survival.

... it should be noted that this sort of "aerial warfare" constitutes a Class I Crime Against humanity, entailing myriad gross violations of international law, as well as every conceivable standard of "civilized" behavior -- the death toll has been steadily ratcheted up by US-imposed sanctions for a full decade now. Enforced all the while by a massive military presence and periodic bombing raids, the embargo has greatly impaired the victims' ability to import the nutrients, medicines and other materials necessary to saving the lives of even their toddlers.

All told, Iraq has a population of about 18 million. The 500,000 kids lost to date thus represent something on the order of 25 percent of their age group. ... In effect, an entire generation has been obliterated.

He's right.  Our military broke international law when we bombed water and sewage treatment plants and the result of those actions was the death of hundreds of thousands of people.  Just as Hamas broke international law and "every conceivable standard of civilized behavior" when it launched rockets into Israel.  But Churchill subsequently went further, arguing:

As for those in the World Trade Center, well, really, let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire, the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved and they did so both willingly and knowingly.

In follow-up interviews he clarified his position, stating:

I am not a "defender" of the September 11 attacks, but simply pointing out that if U.S. foreign policy results in massive death and destruction abroad, we cannot feign innocence when some of that destruction is returned. I have never said that people "should" engage in armed attacks on the United States, but that such attacks are a natural and unavoidable consequence of unlawful U.S. policy. As Martin Luther King, quoting Robert F. Kennedy, said, "Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable."

In other words, if a government (say ... Hamas) commits attacks on other countries that result in "death and destruction" (like ... rocket attacks) then the country that they attack (Israel?) has the right to "return" some of that destruction.  I have no doubt that many of Israel's staunchest defenders would agree with the quote from RFK.

Churchill was excoriated in the press for his remarks, and rightly so.  In fact, this blog has several posts in the archives show the righteous anger directed toward Churchill.  That so many of those same posters have now adopted his logic to defend Israel's actions is disappointing, to say the least.

As usual, Thomas Frank is one of the few writers making any sense of this year:

Today we stand at the end of a long historical stretch in which laissez-faire was glorified as gospel and the business community got almost its entire wish list granted by the state. To show its gratitude, the finance industry then stampeded us all over a cliff.

To be sure, some of the preachers of the old-time religion now admit the error of their ways. Especially remarkable is Alan Greenspan's confession of "shocked disbelief" on discovering how reality differed from holy writ.

But by and large the free-market medicine men seem determined to learn nothing from this awful year. Instead they repeat their incantations and retreat deeper into their dogma, generating endless schemes in which government is to blame, all sin originates with the Community Reinvestment Act, and the bailouts for which their own flock is desperately bleating can do nothing but harm.

And they wait for things to return to normal, without realizing that things already have.

It is always wise to remember that the damage done by Republicans during the Bush years was not the actions of a rogue group of misguided politicians who veered dramatically from the wishes of the GOP faithful.  On the contrary, think back to a mere three years ago when ...

Asked to choose between George Washington and George W. Bush, Republicans in the survey supported Bush by a margin of more than 2 to 1, while Democrats and independents overwhelmingly favored Washington.

George Washington lost among Republicans 2 to 1.  Really.

As 2008 draws to a close, I invite all of us to take some time to consider our long held beliefs about reality.  Perhaps, as 2009 dawns tomorrow morning and with it a new administration moves closer to taking power, we should take a moment to ask if the policies of Bush and his conservative policy makers have created a better America for us all.  Has deregulation worked?  Is the War on Terror making us safer?  Is expanded freedom and prosperity accomplished through a weaker and disinterested government?

If not, if the evidence from the last eight years is convincing enough to suggest that conservative ideas might not actually work, then I invite conservatives to consider changing your mind.  You don't have to be pro-abortion to be pro-union.  You don't have to endorse same-sex marriage to oppose stupid wars.  And you don't have to be a Marxist to embrace universal health care.  It is ok, in fact it is very wise, to change your mind when presented with evidence that convincingly challenges what you believe to be true.  Is the evidence from eight years of conservative rule convincing enough?  That is a personal decision each of must make, imo, and change our beliefs accordingly.

There are many on this blog and elsewhere who are going to spend most of 2009 trying to convince us that progress is a mistake.  They will tell you that new regulations will stunt growth, or that "big government health care" will make everyone sicker.  They will harshly criticize attempts to make unions stronger.  And they will argue that pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into foreign wars is the only way to keep us safe.

What are the fruits of these ideas?  When we look around the country today, can we really say that we are safer and more prosperous because we followed this advice?  Or is it more likely that our country is in one of the worst spots of its history because of these ideas? 

There is an old saying, "Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me."  I humbly raise a toast to the notion that in 2009 we won't get fooled again.

Cheers!

In the last couple of weeks the front page of this blog has been host to a series of misleading and often inaccurate posts about banking, business, and unions.  The gist of the entries seems to be an attempt to demonize the American Worker and lionize the American Capitalists.  Thus, we've repeatedly heard of workers who enjoy nice health care plans and moderately generous pensions, and the companies that lay in ruins because of these benefits.  A little poking at the facts, a little prodding of the commenter, and the evidence behind these claims usually crumbles.  But not, perhaps, before some actual damage may have been done.  After all, these articles are on the front page.  Inaccurate or not, many people may read them and assume the writer is telling the whole story.

It is difficult to tell the whole story when it comes to America's current economic crisis.  From stories about minority borrowers who caused the Crast of '08, to tales of autoworkers making six figure incomes, the barrage of lies, damned lies, and statistics has made it difficult to know which side to be on.  So I thought I might take a moment to share the words of a truly Great American, Will Rogers.  This is from a recording released May 31, 1923, by Victor Records. The origins of the speech are unknown; Rogers may have been speaking before the annual convention of the American Bankers Association in 1922, in New York City. The document is included in The Papers of Will Rogers, Volume Four, published by the University of Oklahoma Press.

Loan sharks and interest hounds—I have addressed every form of organized graft in the United States, excepting Congress, so it’s naturally a pleasure for me to appear before the biggest. You are without a doubt the most disgustingly rich audience I ever talked to, with the possible exception of the bootleggers’ union, Local No. 1, combined with the enforcement officers.

Now, I understand that you hold this convention every year to announce what the annual gyp will be. I have often wondered where the depositors hold their convention. I had an account in the bank once, and the banker, he asked me to withdraw it. He said I had used up more red ink than the account was worth.

I see where your convention was opened by a prayer, you had to send outside your ranks to get somebody that knew how to pray. You should have had one creditor there; he’d have shown you how to pray. I noticed in the prayer the clergyman announced to the Almighty that the bankers were here. Well, it wasn’t exactly an announcement. It was more in the nature of a warning. He didn’t tell the devil, as he figured he knew where you all were all the time anyhow.

I see by your speeches that you’re very optimistic of the business conditions of the coming year. Boy, I don’t blame you. If I had your dough, I’d be optimistic too.

Will you please tell me what you all do with the vice presidents the bank has? I guess that’s to get anybody more discouraged before they can see the main guy. Why, the United States is the biggest business institution in the world. They got only one vice president. Nobody’s ever found anything for him to do.

You have a wonderful organization. I understand you have 10,000 here, and what you have in federal prisons brings your membership up to around 30,000. So goodbye, paupers. You’re the finest bunch of shylocks that ever foreclosed a mortgage on a widow’s home.

Will Rogers.  A great American.  Welcome to the back page, my friend.

As George W. Bush and Dick Cheney rapidly move from the center stage of American politics it might be wise to take a minute and remember what the last eight years of Republican rule have brought to America.  It seems to me that many Americans are so tired of Bush, Co. and so inspired by Obama, Co. that they are willing to let Bush and Cheney slowly fade into the woodwork.  That, imo, would be a big mistake.

Anyone interested in the policies pursued by the Republicans in DC following the 9/11 attacks and up to this day needs to watch Torturing Democracy - which is a free stream on the web.  Here's a preview:

There is a learning guide that accompanies the film, which looks useful for the classroom. I highly suggest this film, and Taxi to the Dark Side, for any American who is concerned about the lengths to which the Bush Administration has gone in the name of safety.  This should not be a partisan issue.  Americans should not torture prisoners.  And those responsible for these atrocities should, without a doubt, be held responsible through either American or international courts of justice.

I have to admit that I didn't get it at first.  So many of my friends seemed so intent on Obama winning before Tuesday night that I thought it was all a little silly.  "What is going to happen if he doesn't win?"  One of my friends asked nervously.  "I guess I'll get up, feed my kid and go to work." I replied, thinking myself quite clever and removed.  I didn't get it.

Don't get me wrong.  I wanted Obama to win.  In fact I gave a relatively large amount of money and a couple of my Saturdays to help the cause.  Supporting Obama was fun, exciting, and important to me.  I didn't do a lot, but I did more than I ever have and much more than most of my nervous friends.  Yet when election night rolled around I found myself somewhat indifferent and over-analytical.  I wasn't passionate about the election either way.  Frankly, I was obsessed with cnn.com's election page, with it's up-to-the-minute results from every county in the United States.  Pretty cool.

And then it happened.  Sometime around 10 p.m. they announced that Obama had won it.  And I had a lump in my throat.  Right now, as I am writing this three days later, I can literally make myself cry thinking about it.  That night, of course, Obama would take the stage in Grant Park, on the shores of Lake Michigan, in Chicago.  My favorite body of water and my hometown.  The importance of the moment was not lost on me.

Why are we crying?  What is it about this man and this election that has elicited such emotion from so many of us?  I don't know the answer to that question.  I think it has something to do with renewal, and with hope.  And I think it has something to do with 9/11, Katrina, torture, FISA, and the new great depression.  This country is hurting right now and electing Obama is the promise of a better future.  The promise that being cynical about America just became lame.  Very, very lame.

A couple of years ago I did some research at the Regional Archives of the Great Lakes Region of the NARA.  The focus of my research was the Fair Employment Practices Committee (FEPC)'s correspondence with African-American workers in the Chicago defense plants during WWII.  Almost every case file in the archives from this period starts with a letter from an average black American to either Franklin or Eleanor Roosevelt.  The letters are almost all handwritten and they are all pleas for help.  One letter was from a woman passed over for a promotion that was granted to a white worker with less experience.  The next from a man who wanted to do his part for the war but could not find a plant willing to hire a black man.  They were like letters written to a friend, asking for a bit of help.

I was amazed by these letters.  Shocked that anyone in this country would be so naive as to believe that a president, in the midst of fighting a war, would have the time to read their letter and help them with their particular employment problem.  "Who are these people," I wrote in my journal one night, "that think the president gives a damn about them?"

I think a lot of us just became people who can believe in America again.  I have no doubt that sixty years from now some cynical young historian may look back on this moment and wonder what the hell we were thinking.  Why in the world an election could make us all cry like little babies.  I sincerely hope that young historian gets an answer to that question in his lifetime, as I have had the answer come to me in mine.

So I just came back from a GOTV trip to Indiana with the Obama folks from campus.  It is actually my second trip over to Indiana, but last time we were in Lafayette.  Today we were on the east side of Indianapolis.

The U of I contingent was about 50 strong.  When we arrived in Indy there were over 100 people crammed into a small storefront in a strip mall.  The volunteer coordinators were ecstatic, and had so many volunteers they ran out of canvassing packets.  But what struck me most forcefully was the diversity of the crowd gathered to put in a day for the Obama campaign.  A lot of older folks, including some seniors.  Lots of professorial types, a TON of young college kids who appeared to be staying for the weekend.  A large group of black folks from Chicago and the Indy area.  A couple of Asian families, and at least a half dozen "Republicans for Obama".  Go figure.

We piled in the cars and hit the neighborhoods trying to get people out to vote.  My particular group hit two very different neighborhoods.  First, we did about 30 homes (assigned address) in a lower-middle-class racially mixed neighborhood and were warmly greeted.  Many of the folks I talked to had already voted.  Those who hadn't voted promised to do so this weekend.  Only one was unaware that an ID is now required (she didn't have one and will probably not be able to vote).

The second neighborhood was an extremely affluent subdivision neighboring a golf course.  We didn't have many addresses to hit in this 'hood, but the entire feel was very different.  One older gentleman, working in his garage when I walked up (his address was on the list) said, "You with Obama?  Go to hell."

My scripted response?  "Thank you sir, have a great day!"

Everyone else was either not home or cordial enough.  One older woman asked me, "Why are *you* working with *them*?"  Oh boy.

Overall it was a great trip.  I was overly impressed by the turnout, the diversity of support for Obama, and the organizational brilliance of the campaign.  We went over, did our job, and went home.  I may go again tomorrow, or maybe Tuesday to drive folks to the polls.

Cheers everyone!

As we are starting to get to know Sarah Palin, it seems wise to look more closely at her stances on important issues of the day.  In last week's installment we learned that Palin opposes abortion in all cases except when the mother is about to die and aborting the baby is the only way to save the mother's life.  Yes, Palin believes rape and incest pregnancies should be carried to term.  No, she hasn't wavered on that stance.  Yet.

These extreme views on abortion rights (or the lack thereof) are consistent with Palin's extreme views on other social issues being debated in America today.  One of the most striking areas of progress in America over the last ten years has been gay rights.  While most Americans continue to oppose gay marriage, recent polling shows that resistance is decreasing.  Furthermore, support for the civil rights of Gay Americans is increasing (note: same polls).  The vast majority of Americans now support giving Gay Americans full citizenship rights, including the right to civil unions with a gay partner.

But not Sarah Palin.  In December, 2006 the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the state government of Alaska had to offer health and retirement benefits to the same-sex partners of state employees.  Palin agreed to enforce the law but made her displeasure known publicly:

"We believe that we have no more judicial options to pursue. So we may disagree with kind of the foundation there, the rationale behind the ruling, but our responsibility is to proceed forward with the law and abide by the constitution," Palin said.

But ultimately, she said, she supports denying those benefits through a constitutional amendment, if that's what the public wants.

And then she went further:

On Wednesday, as news reporters looked on, Palin signed a bill that calls for an advisory vote on whether the Alaska Constitution should be amended to ban such benefits.

When the State Legislature passed a bill banning the state from granting the benefits to their employees, Palin did the right thing and vetoed that bill, stating that a signature would have been illegal.  But she continued to voice her support for the advisory vote, which took place in April of 2007:

Voters were asked whether the Legislature should pursue a constitutional amendment that would bar benefits such as health coverage for gay or lesbian partners of public employees.

Just over 53 percent of the voters supported the ballot measure, telling lawmakers to go forward with an amendment. Nearly 47 percent opposed it. Nothing else was on the state ballot in the advisory election, which cost $1.2 million. About 23 percent of registered voters turned out.

That's right, folks: $1.2 million for a vote that was an essentially meaningless political ploy to garner support for overturning the rights of same-sex couples.  When only 53% of Alaskans voiced support for the amendment Palin let the issue drop.

Conclusions:  Palin did the right thing with her veto of the bill that would have forbidden the Alaska State Government from implementing the court's decision.  But she really had no choice legally and her obvious opposition to the ruling, coupled with her support of a meaningless advisory vote (to the tune of $1.2 million) shows the her viewpoint on civil rights is far from the mainstream in this country.  Furthermore, one has to ask why Alaska, and its brand-new governor, bother to waste tax payer dollars and legislative time trying to pass a consitutional amendment denying rights to state employees.  This is obviously a step that shows how far out of the mainstream Palin and the Republicans in Alaska are.

Next Week:  Hunting!  As the season of sitting for hours in a tree 100-200 yards away from your car waiting for a helpless animal to walk along so you can kill it approaches, we'll take a look at Palin's love of aerial wolf hunting!  Yes, here's a woman who enjoys nothing more than killing wolves from a helicopter while, no doubt, listening to Steven Curtis Chapman.  Should be fun!

One of the nice things about Sarah Palin is her allegiance to the far right wing of the Republican party.  In contrast to the more moderate McCain, Palin's positions on a wide variety of issues should set a strong contrast between the tickets, especially for independents.

For example, Salon recently published "What's the difference between Palin and Muslim fundamentalists?  Lipstick!" by Juan Cole.  Money quote:

The GOP vice-presidential pick holds that abortion should be illegal, even in cases of rape, incest or severe birth defects, making an exception only if the life of the mother is in danger. She calls abortion an "atrocity" and pledges to reshape the judiciary to fight it. Ironically, Palin's views on the matter are to the right of those in the Muslim country of Tunisia, which allows abortion in the first trimester for a wide range of reasons. Classical Muslim jurisprudents differed among one another on the issue of abortion, but many permitted it before the "quickening" of the fetus, i.e. until the end of the fourth month. Contemporary Muslim fundamentalists, however, generally oppose abortion.

Palin's stance is even stricter than that of the Parliament of the Islamic Republic of Iran. In 2005, the legislature in Tehran attempted to amend the country's antiabortion statute to permit an abortion up to four months in case of a birth defect. The conservative clerical Guardianship Council, which functions as a sort of theocratic senate, however, rejected the change. Iran's law on abortion is therefore virtually identical to the one that Palin would like to see imposed on American women, and the rationale in both cases is the same, a literalist religious impulse that resists any compromise with the realities of biology and of women's lives. Saudi Arabia's restrictive law on abortion likewise disallows it in the case or rape or incest, or of fetal impairment, which is also Gov. Palin's position.

Yeah, she's pretty much a whack-job.  Next up: Palin's fight against rights for same-sex partners!  No, I didn't say same-sex marriage. Palin has fought against the rights of same-sex couples as citizens, whether they are married or not.

I dropped by a party this evening and had several discussions about the upcoming presidential election.  This party was dominated by Democrats and several expressed real concern about Obama's chances in November.

The Gallup Daily Tracking Poll is showing McCain up 48-45, his highest showing since May.  It is hard to watch the dreaded MSM without hear that Sarah Palin has "electrified the Republican base".  Pictures of large McCain/Palin rallies are flooding in from all across the country.  It seems that Republicans might have the momentum.

I don't think McCain has much of a chance.  In fact, I think McCain is probably doomed.  And I think he knows it.  Everyone I talked to at this party watched the Republican convention last week, and none of them could tell me what the message was from the convention.  I reminded them that the focus was "reform" and "change".

It is laughable that the Republican Party thinks it can run on the messages of "reform" and "change" and win this election.

But it is fascinating to see the fear in so many Democrat's eyes.  There is a real sense out there that this is the one: if this election goes to the Republicans then there is something seriously wrong with the world.  There is definitely something wrong with the world, of course, but I'm not sure it has much to do with politics.

So I told these folks what I really believe.  Give Obama money, and sign up to work in Indiana.  Knock on doors, man a phone bank, take an old lady across town to wait in line for two hours at the DMV so she can get an ID and legally vote in that state.  Give Obama some more money.  Get involved!

To many this seems like news from outer space.  "Oh yeah ... I could do something!"  Who knew?

But you know ... even if Obama loses there is nothing to fear.  Sometimes it takes a real, painful and unthinkable disaster to create the kind of change this country really needs.  If McCain wins, there will be tens of millions of people who will have to face the fact that the Democrats don't know how to win the big one.  And that could destroy the Democrats, who have done their best to play Republican-Lite for far too long now.

And that might not be a bad thing at all.  Because, after all, four more years of conservative economics and neo-con foreign policy will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that conservatives simply cannot be trusted to run a country effectively.  So while another loss might hurt badly, it might actually be just the thing this country needs.

In lieu of recent events on this blog and in the larger political community, and with an eye to the intense political debates that will no doubt be occurring in the next two months, I have decided to coin a term that may be helpful to us all.  That term is "partisan dissonance".  I'd suggest using the acronym PD in parenthesis as a citation.

It is my belief that this term has not been used before, which may make me something of a linguistic pioneer, though I do not claim to be as brilliant as Noam Chomsky (PD) in this area.

What is partisan dissonance?  It is a phenomena in which two intelligent members of society view an event, an idea, or the written word in two completely different ways because of their political beliefs.  I will now cite a few examples of this phenomenon to better illustrate the point (note: these are fictional examples):

PARTISAN DISSONANCE EXAMPLE A:

Partisan 1: Barack Obama has no experience at all and is completely unprepared to be President.
Partisan 2: Obama has a large number of experiences which make him well qualified to be president, including his legal career, his time in the Illinois State Senate, his experience as a US Senator, and his leadership during his campaign.  How can you not see how experienced he is?  It is so obvious!
Partisan 1: None of these experiences are sufficient to show that he is prepared to be President.  He did nothing when he had these jobs, so he doesn't have the qualifications to be president.  How can you possibly think someone so inexperienced actually has enough experience to be president?  It is so obvious that he doesn't!
Partisan 2: Oh yeah?  Well Sarah Palin was in the PTA and then the mayor of a town the size of Hoopeston.  Sure she is a governor, but only for a year-and-a-half and that state is one of the smallest in the country.  Obviously she is completely unprepared to be vice-president!
Partisan 1: What are you talking about?  She is a governor and therefore has more executive experience than Obama.  If anything she is more qualified to be president than he is!

At this point, further discussion of these points is useless.  This is an unfortunate case of partisan dissonance.

PARTISAN DISSONANCE EXAMPLE B:

Partisan 1: I can't believe we've had to suffer through eight years of conservative rule.  It is time for a change!
Partisan 2:  What are you talking about?  Sure we've had eight years of George W. Bush, but he isn't a conservative.  If anything, he is more liberal than conservative.  Just look at the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan, or NCLB.  Obviously these are not the creations of a real conservative.  What we really need this year is a return to traditional conservativism.
Partisan 1:  What planet are you living on?  Are you really saying that a president who slashed taxes for the richest Americans and deregulated almost every federal agency is not a conservative?  You're nuts!
Partisan 2:  I'm nuts?  You don't even know what conservativism is.  Please provide 25-50 concrete examples of the "conservative" decisions Mr. Bush has made so I can refute them all.
Partisan 1:  I'm not going to bother listing all of the things that Bush had done that can be considered conservative.  You should provide 50-100 examples of "liberal" decisions made by Bush so I can refute then all!

At this point, further discussion of these points is useless.  This is an unfortunate case of partisan dissonance.

PARTISAN DISSONANCE EXAMPLE C:

Partisan 1:  The media is biased against Republicans.  It is obvious from the way they treated Sarah Palin.  They hate Republicans and are determined to make sure McCain doesn't win this election.  I am disgusted by the media!
Partisan 2:  The media is biased against Democrats.  Look at the way they are fawning over Sarah Palin.  Obviously these people want to make sure their corporate boss's party (the GOP) wins.  I am disgusted by the media!

At this point, further discussion of these points is useless.  This is an unfortunate case of partisan dissonance.

PARTISAN DISSONANCE EXAMPLE D:

Partisan 1:  Sarah Palin's speech was so negative and full of lies.
Partisan 2:  Palin's speech wasn't negative or full of lies.  She was telling it like it is!  She is a pit bull with lipstick on and you have no right to call her a liar.  You're a sexist pig.
Partisan 1:  Well, the Democrats would have never given a speech that stretched the truth like Palin did.  And she made fun of community organizers!  What is wrong with her?  Does she hate America?
Partisan 2:  She was not making fun of community organizers!  She was just pointing out, in her pit-bull-with-lipstick way, that Obama thinks he is ready to be president because of his experience as a community organizer.  Obviously you don't understand politics.  There is a big difference between criticizing a candidate or a party's experience and criticizing an entire group of people.
Partisan 1:  No there's not!  She was totally making fun of community organizers!  And why wouldn't she?  Did you see that there were only like three minorities at the entire convention?  Republicans have a major race problem, so "community organizers" are obviously fair game.
Partisan 2:  What?  You just called me a racist!  How dare you say I am a racist.  Why do you hate Republicans so much?
Partisan 1:  I didn't call you a racist, I said your party has a race problem.  Though I would add that several Republicans are now using racial terms to try to bring down Obama.  But that doesn't mean you are a racist!  There is a big difference between criticizing what the party does and criticizing an entire group of people.
Partisan 2:  No there's not!  You are calling all Republicans racist!

At this point, further discussion of these points is useless.  This is an unfortunate case of partisan dissonance.

Researchers have yet to find a cure for partisan dissonance.  Until that day, psychologists believe sufferers should band together to share their experiences with this disease.  Maybe if we all work together to listen to each other's struggles with PD we can make the difference in the spread of this horrible disease.  And maybe, just maybe, our children won't be forced to suffer as we have.

I'd like to make this thread a place for those us who suffer from PD to share our stories, our struggles, and our triumphs.  From one sufferer to another, I say welcome!

This just in:

CHICAGO (AP) - A federal judge in Chicago has barred school districts statewide from holding the daily moment of silence suitable for prayer that is required under state law.

U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman said today he has given school districts time to object to his March 28 preliminary injunction on enforcement of the moment of silence law, but received no objections.

The Trib adds a personal touch:

"I didn't have a problem so much with the idea of us reflecting in school," said de Grazia, a junior who walked out of her first-period class when the moment of silence was first observed. "But I can't stand the idea of the government telling me what to think or what to say and when to do it."

Dawn Sherman, 14, said students at her school laughed at the silent moment when it was first implemented. "I was pretty much thinking that it was wasting my time," said Sherman.

For the record, Blagojevich vetoed this measure when it first arrived on his desk.

There is little doubt that white flight districts in central Illinois, like Mahomet-Seymour, will end up keeping the moment of silence for the rest of the year, at least.  Religion and schooling tends to mix pretty nicely in homogenous towns.  Expect further litigation over the summer.

If your looking for an insightful read on how the general election may play out you could do much worse than these two summaries:

John Barbender, Republican Media Consultant:

Obama shows that anyone can rise up if they’re smart enough and talented enough, but the question is whether he has the experience to lead the country in turbulent times. That’s a huge question mark. McCain is a PC and Obama is Mac. People like the look of Macs but there are a lot more PCs out there. McCain is an extremely safe choice for America and people may decide they can’t afford to do anything but make the safe choice.

Cathy Allen, Democratic Political Consultant:

McCain is very vulnerable. He is old news. He looks like someone who should be your grandfather–at a time that you, as a grandchild, think it’s your day. I see it as a generational election, especially if Obama is the nominee. He’s an exciting, inspirational speaker and next to him McCain looks like he’s from your grandfather’s generation.

Interesting stuff.  Read the rest, it is worth your five minutes.  :)

So it seems that the No Child Left Behind Act is finally coming to fruition.  I have recently learned that Urbana High School has officially failed to make Adequate Yearly Progress for the fifth year in a row.  Because of this dubious distinction, UHS is currently required to create a “restructuring plan” that is designed to fundamentally change the way learning happens at the school.  My understanding is that if UHS fails to make adequate yearly progress again this year the restructuring plan (which must be approved by the Illinois State Board of Education) will go into effect sometime next year.

The restructuring plan will be created by the school district, presumably a team that consists of administrators and teachers.  There is little doubt that such a plan would include drastic changes, including the possibility of the firing of the entire administrative team and perhaps 30-50% of the teaching staff.  It is also possible that the school could be turned into a charter school, or turned over to a for-profit entity like Edison schools.  In other words, this school is in deep doo-doo.

But what is more interesting is the fact that UHS is not unique.  Hundreds of schools across Illinois and thousands of schools across America are facing the same challenges.  Furthermore, there is little doubt that almost every school in America will find itself in the same position within a few years.  NCLB dictates that a school must meet 100% proficiency in reading and math by 2014.  In other words, practically EVERY STUDENT in the EVERY SCHOOL in America must be able to “meet or exceed” the standards on standardized tests within 6 years.

There is just no way that is going to happen.

Which creates a problem.  The only way for a school to improve the learning that takes place within its walls is for the teachers and administrators to demonstrate a real commitment to improving the school.  How is a teacher supposed to truly care about implementing a plan to improve test scores 5 or 10% when within one or two years even that increase will be insufficient to avoid “restructuring”?  Every year the goal posts get moved further down the field from the schools.  How can we expect our teachers to work hard to meet these standards when in the back of their minds they must know that it will never be enough?

NCLB is a disaster.  Like the Iraq War it is a policy based on simple ideas that don’t work in the real world.  Instead of improving schools it has created a culture of frustration, anger and defeat in our public schools.  And every year the required AYP grows (I believe it is close to 70% at this point) the frustration mounts.  It is time to repeal this toxic, ineffective legislation.

Our Representative Timothy V. Johnson supported the passage of NCLB in 2001.  The Democratically-led Congress has put reauthorization on hold until next year, when they intend to take a careful look at the Act.

In the meantime expect the frustration to continue.

Our Representative from the 15th district voted AGAINST the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).  To be specific, Mr. Johnson voted against a law that ...

Makes it an unlawful employment practice for covered entities (employers, employment agencies, labor organizations, or joint labor-management committees) to discriminate against an individual on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation, including actions based on the actual or perceived sexual orientation of a person with whom the individual associates or has associated.

Even after his conservative cohorts amended the bill in several ways.  Like an amendment that ...

Prohibits construing this Act to require a covered entity to treat a couple who are not married in the same manner as the covered entity treats a married couple for purposes of employee benefits.

Declares that, in this Act, the terms "married" and "marry" refer to a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.

We don't know Mr. Johnson's reasoning for voting against this bill because, as usual, he didn't say anything on the floor.  As a side note, Johnson has actually sponsored seven bills during the 110th Congress, which is a bit of a burst of energy for the guy.  Unfortunately, like most of Tim's bills, all are currently languishing in committee.

We are represented in the US Congress by a man who has voted against employment protections for gays and lesbians.  Personally, I am embarassed for our district.